Evidence of meeting #85 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:20 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
We have training on things like cybersecurity, which show them.... We will react if there is pressure, through social media and the like.
On other matters, I think it is probably best that you ask Alison Giles rather than me.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
This is fascinating. I guess I'm trying to figure out the coordination between the House of Commons, if at all, and your security and intelligence agencies in providing protection to members of Parliament—
10:20 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
There is coordination. I think it is reasonable to say that there are conversations that have happened, but those are conversations with Alison. I suspect this is not something that one would wish to discuss in an open session.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That's fair enough. I'm not looking for any operational details, I'm trying to figure out whether there is coordination between the security and intelligence forces and the House of Commons.
10:20 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
There are certainly conversations. We have a security department, which Alison heads, and the police will.... There are contacts, clearly.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Indeed. To protect the precinct, staff and the elected and named representatives of Parliament, how has this role evolved over the last 15 years? In particular, I'm thinking of how there was a lot of speculation in the media in terms of Russian interference in the Brexit debate.
What types of lessons have you been able to learn and share as a baseline with members of the House of Commons and the Lords?
10:20 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
I think it is difficult to speak about this with much specificity in the open.
Remember, there are multiple types of foreign interference, such as cybersecurity, falsified operations on social media, straightforward intimidation and, if you like, economic manipulation.
On economic manipulation, trying to persuade members or Lords to do things in Parliament for financial gain, that isn't a matter so much about foreign interference. That goes far wider than that. The House has rules about that. They are enforced. We have lay members on our Committee on Standards.
Obviously, to stop something, you have to find out that it happened, but there is no sign that this is particularly happening.
On cybersecurity, yes, obviously this is something we take seriously. On social media, I believe there's guidance and training available. As I said, on other things, I think you're best to talk to Alison.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
We will go to Madame Gaudreau.
Ms. Samson, without trying to assume, the time it would take for interpretation would not be taken away from the member's time, so please do hear the interpretation out before responding, unless you would prefer to respond in French. You're welcome to do that as well. Otherwise, whatever official language of Canada of your choice is welcome.
10:20 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
You'd be surprised. We encourage everyone to try to speak as much as they can—maybe at the next meeting, though, because we have a vote in a bit.
Go ahead, Madam Gaudreau.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Good morning, Madam Clerk.
Yes, we're going to take the time we need for you to understand what I'm saying.
Madam Chair, first I would like to ensure, through you, that I understand the explanations provided in the protocol on alert, threat and mention cases reported by the security intelligence services.
To whom are those cases reported? To the Prime Minister or the Speaker of the House of Commons?
10:25 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
While this is not something that I deal with operationally, it isn't the role of the ISC to warn of threats to Parliament in that matter. Its role is to oversee the security services. As I say, I think this is better discussed in private, in that you will get better answers from my colleague, Alison Giles.
10:25 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The purpose of my question was to know who, the Prime Minister or the Speaker of the House of Commons, receives the information first when your security intelligence services consider it important that it be known.
10:25 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
I would imagine that it would be the director of our security services, but these are not things on which I have detailed knowledge.
10:25 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I see.
My next question concerns the stages. When you say you make public the findings of investigations conducted following potential sanctions, what do you mean by "make public"?
10:25 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
Are you talking about ISC inquiries or House of Commons select committee inquiries?
10:25 a.m.
Bloc
10:25 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
Okay.
For the ISC, that is negotiated with the Prime Minister, and then the ISC will lay its report before Parliament and publish it. You can find their reports on the Internet. That report will say whether or not there were redactions. That's the process for the ISC.
A House of Commons committee will always report in public. There is no facility, I believe, for a solely House of Commons committee to report privately. It will report to the House and publish it. What it might not do is publish the material on which it has relied. It will publish as much as it can, so that people can understand why it's come to its conclusion, but it might redact some matters.
10:25 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I see.
Madam Clerk, earlier you said that intimidation was clearly a breach of parliamentary privilege. Would you please describe any cases that have occurred in your Parliament that might serve as precedents in the matter before us?
10:25 a.m.
Clerk of the Journals
I cannot think of one relating to foreign interference, except for the matter of sanctions against U.K. members of Parliament who had criticized China. In that case, it wasn't dealt with as contempt. It was a state-level action, and the response was to make it clear that the Chinese ambassador was no longer welcome, although other members of the embassy are permitted to enter the precinct.
That's the state level. It was not treated as contempt. It's hard to see how it could have been, because it depends on someone being in the jurisdiction, and there is a particular sensitivity about diplomatic staff.
In principle, the House of Commons' powers to take action against them are unlimited. In practice, they are at liberty to leave the jurisdiction, and in exercising those powers, you would invite members to think very carefully about the framework of the Vienna convention, which is supranational law, and about the possible implication for U.K. diplomats abroad.
As I say, that sanctioning of U.K. members of Parliament for what they had said in Parliament was not taken through the contempt jurisdiction.
In terms of intimidation, which was dealt with as contempt, the most recent attempt was somebody saying they would take legal action against a member for what they had said, if they repeated what they had said in the House. Other similar contempts were saying that you would withdraw funding for activities in a member's constituency, or that you would affect selection.
Not much of our case law goes to foreign intimidation.
10:30 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'd like you to answer my next question with a yes or no.
Under your procedures, or the protocol in place in your Parliament, is it possible to avoid disclosing the fact that a member has been the victim of intimidation or threats? Yes or no?